COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Since the captioned matters involve an identical set of facts and raise substantially similar questions of law, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment, treating Special Civil Application No.580 of 2026 as the lead matter.

2. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the legality and validity of the orders dated 31st December, 2025 and 18th July, 2025, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner seeking regularisation of the subject construction under the Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized Development Act, 2022 came to be rejected.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are stated hereunder:

3.1 The dispute in the present matter pertains to the construction carried out on Plot No.233 admeasuring approximately 166.67 sq. yards situated in Sitaram Park Proposed Society, forming part of Final Plot No.72/1 of T.P. Scheme No.10, carved out from Survey No.50 paiki land admeasuring about 11 acres and 4 gunthas situated at Village Motamava, Taluka and District Rajkot.

3.2 The land bearing Survey No.50 paiki originally belonged to one Aniruddhsinh Chatursinh Jadeja, Bilharbaben Vibhajibhai Jadeja, Arvindsinh Vibhajibhai Jadeja and Kiritsinh Vibhajibhai Jadeja, whose names were reflected in the revenue record in the year 1999. Thereafter, the said land came to be sold by way of four separate registered sale deeds in favour of Mansukhbhai Chhaganbhai Patel, Bhavanbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel, Shivabhai Nathabhai Patel, Mansukhbhai Jivrajbhai Patel, Libabhai Raghavbhai Patel, Rameshbhai Parbatbhai Patel, Bhaskarbhai Devshankar Mehta and Mavjibhai Manjibhai Sakhala.

3.3 It appears that entries of the aforesaid sale deeds were not mutated in the revenue records. Around the said period in the year 1999, a proposed housing society came to be formed on the subject land and construction activities were undertaken without obtaining requisite statutory permissions. According to the petitioner, the concept of proposed societies was prevalent at the relevant time and there existed more than sixty such proposed societies in the city of Rajkot. It is further the case of the petitioner that one Jayrajbhai K. Solanki developed and constructed the Sitaram Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed) on the subject land and a layout plan was also prepared in respect thereof.

3.4 It is alleged that the said Jayrajbhai K. Solanki, in collusion with the original landowners and the subsequent purchasers, proceeded to sell several plots in the said proposed society to various persons including the petitioner herein by issuing share certificates and possession receipts during the period between 1999 and 2002. Plot No.233 was originally allotted to one Rameshbhai Bhurabhai Faldu, whose rights in the said plot subsequently came to be transferred to the present petitioner by way of a transfer deed dated 17th October, 2019.

3.5 The petitioner has further contended that the said proposed society possessed a Permanent Account Number bearing No.ACAAS3857J and the existence of the society as well as the possession of the petitioner and other members over their respective plots is evidenced by several documents including electricity bills, photographs and other contemporaneous records.

3.6 It is the case of the petitioner that immediately upon obtaining possession of the plot, the petitioner or his predecessor-in-title constructed a commercial structure upon the subject plot and has continued to remain in possession thereof. It is further stated that the society consists of approximately 150 members who have raised various residential and commercial constructions.

3.7 The petitioner has alleged that with a view to defeat the rights of the purchasers including the petitioner, the original landowners instituted four civil suits being Special Civil Suit Nos.32, 33, 34 and 35 of 2006 against the